Federal Forecast for Climate Change: It’s Getting Hot in Here

A new draft report suggests that the climate change we've experienced so far is nothing compared to what's in the pipeline. Can we make a dent in global warming—or is time to just prepare for the worst?

Spring came early to Walden Pond in 2012. Scientists — both amateur and professional — have kept records of flowering times for plants in Walden Pond, near the Massachusetts town of Concord, since Henry David Thoreau began doing it in 1852. The result is one of the best continuous datasets of nature in the U.S, which has made Thoreau’s retreat an excellent lab for testing the effects of manmade climate change on the environment. In a new paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Jan. 14, researchers reported that the unusually warm winter and spring of 2012 and 2010 resulted in the earliest known flowering times for dozens of species of plants around Walden Pond, sometimes nearly a month earlier than they had back in Thoreau’s cooler times.

Of course, you don’t need to pore through the records at Walden Pond to know that the climate is changing. Last week the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced that average annual temperatures for the continental U.S. were hotter in 2012 than in any year in U.S. recorded history. Extreme weather was the second-worst on record, with severe wildfires, major storms and a crippling drought causing billions of dollars in damage to the American economy. Really, all you need to do to notice climate change is to walk outside. Yesterday in New York City the high temperature was a misty 57° F (14° C) — yet another unseasonably warm January day when the temperature has barely dipped below freezing. Nor is it just the U.S.: a new study published in Climatic Change has found that global warming has increased monthly heat records by a factor of five. And while a burst of cold air has led to sub-freezing temperatures throughout much of the West over the past few days, I’m willing to bet my salary that average temperatures for the country this month will be higher than the 20th century mean for January. Why? One reason is that the last time the U.S. had a colder than average month was all the way back in December — of 1983.

But the warming and weather disruption we’ve seen so far will just be the beginning. Late last week a team of more than 300 federal scientists released a draft of the National Climate Assessment, which gathers the latest research on how climate change is likely to affect the U.S. The semi-regular report — the third such published — is a product of the Global Change Research Act of 1990, which required a national climate assessment to be conducted every four years.

This is the point at which you’re probably wondering why, if a 1990 law mandated that a national climate assessment be produced every four years, we’re only getting around to releasing the third one in 2013, or 23 years after the original legislation was passed. That’s in part because of the usual slow workings of the federal bureaucracy — complicated by the fact that the report is complied by an inter-governmental body involving 13 separate federal agencies and departments — but also because conservatives have repeatedly attacked the assessment for supposedly exaggerating the effects of climate change. No climate assessment was published during former President George W. Bush’s administration, and though the schedule is back in order under President Obama, the difficult history of the U.S. Global Change Research Program is another reminder of just how politicized this subject has become.

But while some politicians might prefer to simply stop studying climate change in hopes that it would go away, the results in the draft report show us that things are will only get worse. The findings include some sobering numbers:

U.S. average temperature has increased by about 1.5° F (0.8°C) since 1895—and notably, more than 80% of this increase has occurred since 1980. The most recent decade was the nation’s hottest on record, and the warming will continue—the report estimates that U.S. temperatures will rise by 2° to 4° F (1.1°C to 2.2° C) over the next few decades.

Of course, the amount of warming will depend on the sensitivity of the climate system — something that remains up for debate — and the rise or fall in carbon emissions we’ll see in the future. Under a high emissions scenario — if the world isn’t able to curb the use of fossil fuels — we could see warming as high as 10° F (5.5° C) by the end of the century.

Climate change will increase the likelihood of water shortages and competition for water, especially in arid but growing areas like the U.S. Southwest. Spring snowpack is on the decline in the mountain West, and we’ll see more seasonal water shortages throughout the country — even in areas where total rainfall will increase.

Some good news: over the next 25 years, the agricultural sector is predicted to be relatively resilient to changes in the climate, including rising temperatures and more sporadic rainfall. That’s important to remember. U.S. farmers have always been the best in the world at getting the most out of their land, but it’s also true that there’s a ceiling to adaptation, and by mid-century, yields of major U.S. crops are expected to decline — seriously bad new for the U.S. and those who depend on American farmers.

There’s more where that came from. This is a 1,000-plus page report, and what was released last week was only a draft put out for public comment. The final version will be released later this spring. Will one more report make a difference? I’m doubtful, though more-precise climate projections for regions or even cities will be invaluable for adaptation. (Of course, mayors and governors will actually have to read those reports — a New York climate panel’s prediction that a major storm and sea level rise could swamp parts of the city wasn’t enough to prepare the Big Apple for Sandy.) At best, these reports might offer a roadmap that shows how best to survive in a hot and crowded age.

When President Barack Obama and a Democratic Congress couldn’t push through cap and trade legislation in 2010 — see Harvard’s Theda Skocpol on the green movement’s political failures — we may have squandered the best chance in a decade to take comprehensive action against climate change. Now we can’t even agree to pay the country’s bills. It’d be nice to feel some optimism, but that’s vanishing faster than the remains of an increasingly rare snowfall in New York. Still, I suppose there’s a silver lining. Spring is just around the corner — and it’s getting closer every year.

Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the
1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected
by a strong La Nina. Global temperature thus continues <a rel="follow" href="http://epalenie.blog.pl/">e-papierosy</a> at a high level
that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of
extreme warm anomalies. The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat
for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural
variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate
forcing.

James Hansen and Bill McKibben are disgraceful continuing to claim that record cold weather is really global warming is just disgusting. Get real jobs where you don't have to lie to support your discredited theories.

God has spoken and .....oh, no change in temperature for the last 10 years...

Change in temperature from the 5-year running mean (1950 to 1980) from 1910 to 1942 (32 years) +.56 C, change in 5-year running mean from 1976 to 2010 (36 years) +0.59 C, same amount of change before accelerated CO2 use as during accelerated CO2 use, of course GOD fails to point this out....

...... "The result is one of the best continuous datasets of nature in the U.S,
which has made Thoreau’s retreat an excellent lab for testing the
effects of manmade climate change on the environment."

Of course the datasets could also be an excellent lab for testing the effects of natural warming on the environment since 1910, following 350 years of global cooling, but of course we wouldn't want to be biased or anything.....

If it's sponsored by big business, it's a scam. This is an insurance scam like Obamacare (originally a GOP scam)

New York Yimes June 23, 1890, Wednesday Page 5

Is our climate changing? The succession of temperate Summers and open Winters through several years, culminating last Winter in the almost total failure of the ice crop throughout the valley of the Hudson, makes the question pertinent. The older inhabitants tell us that the Winters are not as cold now as when they were young, and we have all observed a marked diminution of the average cold even in this last decade.

I am MRS Gerald Wilhite. I accidentally stumbled upon this conversation. All I have learned from what I have read here is that nobody engaged in this exchange of opinions would change his or her viewpoint were the wizard behind the curtain were himself or herself (if there is indeed such a being of any or no gender) to step forward and explain all. So why bother? I hope Gerald is participating for the entertainment value. It is the only value to be found here and in my opinion (which I will never change, of course ) there are thousands of more entertaining ways to spend time than trading barbs with total strangers. Now I will get back to the last episode of "Dancing With The Stars".

It is a well known among climate scientists and climate modelers that we don't know enough about what we are doing to make trillion dollar public policy decisions that wastefully such up valuable resources. That sort of thing not only wastes dollars. It trashes millions of lives in poor and undeveloped countries.

Didn't we learn anything from the disastrous 'ethanol from corn' program? We all pay at the pump and supermarket for it every day. Its primary windfall profit beneficiaries are corporate corn farms and powerful politicians (Republicans and Democrats) who get secretly prearranged annual campaign contributions from big players in the US corn industry, players like Archer-Daniels-Midland and Dupont. Both easily stave off the harsh public criticism (and jail sentences) that they should be getting by making big contributions to AGW and cAGW promoters. It stinks.

I could not find a clear citation to the paper on which your article is based in your article, but I assume that you were talking about “Global Temperature Update Through 2012, 15 January 2013 by J. Hansen, M. Sato, R. Ruedy”, which has not yet been peer-reviewed.

This preliminary paper is notable because it is, to my knowledge, the first time Hansen has admitted that global warming flat-lined several years ago. In one of his typical intentional deceptions, Hansen admits to five years of no global warming in this preliminary paper. I’m confident that he will, as usual, correct his deception to ‘over 15 years’ in the final paper. I find it sadly amusing to watch him back away from his fundamental tenet that CO2 is the primary driver of global warming. The final paper is all that will go in the record. Hansen is obviously trying to fabricate a great legacy. I must admit that he is probably the best scientific con man we’ve seen since the Piltdown Man hoax of 1913. Like an evangelist preacher at a small town tent revival, Hansen knows how to ‘speak in tongues’ --- convoluted scientific tongues in this case --- to keep the faithful believers stirred up and in line.

To those who have not read it, I highly recommend an obscure little book entitled “The True Believer”, written in 1949 by Eric Hoffer. He was an uneducated migrant worker and longshoreman that many say will go down in history as one of the preeminent philosophers of the 20th century. It should be required reading for climate scientists.

FORMER climate blame believers are better planet lovers. *Occupywallstreet does not even mention CO2 in its list of demands because of the bank-funded carbon trading stock markets ruled by corporations and trustworthy politicians.

Furthermore, "January 14" does not appear to even be a publication date for PNAS. Can we stop with the philosophical debate for long enough to use the commentary thread as a way to get Time Magazine to straighten out its damned reporting!?

I just spent about half an hour trying to confirm that the National Academy of Sciences actually published the article that Time Magazine says they published: "In a new paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences on Jan. 14, researchers reported that the unusually warm winter and spring of 2012 and 2010 resulted in the earliest known flowering times for dozens of species of plants..."

I can't find any such article. Can anyone else? I just get sick of the combination of uncited scientific quotation in the media combined with scientific periodicals that do their best to hide from search engines. It's ridiculous. Where's the article? Does it say what Time says it does? Do the editors of Time care? Does the National Academy of Sciences give a whit about the "public interest"? Then straighten this nonsense out!

Those who deny the existence of any kind of climate change, even when it kicks them in the head, must be living under a whole pile of rocks. But the idea that energy efficiency equals economic ruin is equally myopic. Energy efficiency is a huge opportunity for new products and services. Extreme weather events have rammed home the decrepit state of our energy distribution system: we can and should make it better. The deniers of change are also deniers of opportunity: perhaps they should stop worrying and learn to love climate change.

I believe the reason it is hard for people to believe that
climate change is real is because humans by design are small minded.There have always been changes in temperature
(both increase and declines), but the problem with today is not that the
temperature is changing but the rate that it is changing.Previously temperature changed over thousands
of years, many centuries (including the ice ages, warm periods, etc).The change that we are seeing now is
happening over 100 years or so (many decades).Humans, on average, only live to be around 70 years, so 100 years sounds
like a very long time.So long that it
is hard for people to believe that the current climate change is not natural.But the earth has been around for a very very
long time.No matter if you believe the earth
is 30,000 years or 1 million year old, 100 years is a blink of the eye.So the change we are seeing now is not normal.So then you have to look at what has changed
over the past 100 years and that is human involvement.

Most people like warmer weather. Plants like more CO2. Melting ice means more available water which because of the waramer temperatures will evaporate into the atmosphere and return as rain to make the plants grow. What's not to like about global warming? It's better than the ice age they were predicting in the '70's. Of course if you built on the beach for the view, you might be concerned.

Climate change is clearly all a hoax - that was proved by those emails that were hacked from the University of East Anglia right? That proves it is all a Democrat hoax to take away our gas guzzlers and our guns. Global warming is just caused by them Dems spoutin a load of hot air! If only they'd shut up the world would all cool off!

Sure, there "may" be a worldwide conspiracy encompassing every university in the world, the National Academies of Science, the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the American Physical Society, the European Federation of Geologists, the Royal Meteorological Society, the National Center for Atmospheric Research, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, 95% of professional climate scientists worldwide etc.

There "may" be aliens living among us.

President Bush "may" have been behind 9/11.

There "may" actually be a giant bunny who hops around the world delivering Easter eggs to children every April.

Right-wing pollsters "may" have been engaging in more than desperate wishful thinking when they predicted a Mitt Romney blowout last November.

But any betting man willing to put his money on these remote possibilities would quickly find himself living behind a dumpster at Walmart.

When 95% of the world's climate scientists and every single major scientific institution in the world agrees on something, you'd better have a PhD and have done some serious research to take the opposing position.

The Earth is a giant log careening down a mighty river and we are 8 billion ants all paddling madly; some with and some against the current. If you think we are in control of the weather, just study the ancient Mayans. Not one of them ever drove a car.

Most man made climate change followers also believe that Obama and the other progressives in government know what they are doing in the area of economics when it is clear they are sending us all to hyperinflation ruin.If you or a scientist voted Obama then I can't trust your judgement as to why we must change our lifestyles and fork over trillions we don't have. By the way China's and India's unrestrained power and car related future demands will undo or make insignificant any sacrifice we would make.Would the Progressives wage war to stop the worlds energy users to save the planet?Crazier things have happened in history all for "the end justifies the means" idea.

I have read The True Believer.Basically, it finds parallels between the
followers of Christ and Hitler.Its
thesis is also applicable to the follows of Limbaugh and climate-change
deniers.But while interesting, science is not disputed by sociology. A more relevant book on the thinking behind science is The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962) by Thomas Kuhn.

The article is based on the 4th National Climate Assessment as stated throughout. It may be found on-line at the National Climate Asssessment webpage. Its a remarkable read - try it. Hanson's paper found:

Global surface temperature in 2012 was +0.56°C (1°F) warmer than the 1951-1980 base period average, despite much of the year being affected by a strong La Nina. Global temperature thus continues at a high level that is sufficient to cause a substantial increase in the frequency of extreme warm anomalies. The 5-year mean global temperature has been flat for a decade, which we interpret as a combination of natural variability and a slowdown in the growth rate of the net climate forcing.

Note that the temperatures are still at a high level - it's the rate of change that slowed but we are still at the upper reaches of recorded temperatures. Indeed, each decade has been hotter than the previous decade for about a half a century.

@JonBoy Plants only like CO2 increasing so much. There is a tipping point. Either that or RUBISCO evolves to handle CO2 more efficiently. As I keep mentioning, climate change is a fantastic experiment for Gould's 'punctuated equilibrium' hypothesis and the Theory of Evolution. There is a global wide selection force for the proper random mutation. This could be a period of rapid evolution. When I say rapid I mean in the 100's of years for mammals. But genetic evidence will be present long before morphological changes.

@JonBoy What's not to like? How about the studies at show a reduction of between 5-30% (depending on the study - with 30% being for the developing countries) in our GDP and a similarly shocking increase in our national debt.

But actually, as I read your reply I think that maybe you are being sarcastic?

As I posted earlier, “what’s not to like” is rising sea
levels that will inundate coastlines and displace a billion people.(Go here to see who gets flooded: http://flood.firetree.net/). For example, about 80% of Florida will end up under water.The displacement will cost 100s of trillions
of dollars.Completely melted glaciers will
dry up what is otherwise reliable water sources for millions more. And tropical
diseases and invasive species will ravage the temperate zones, which is where
the majority of the world’s populations reside.Whose idea of a good time is that?

@speedbird286 Somebody needs to tell them Dems to stop melting our glaciers, acidifying our oceans, raising our sea levels, screwing up the migration patterns of our animals, making our droughts and hurricanes worse and all that. Man them libs is mean. And why? I ain't never heard glaciers say an unkind word about President Obama or FDR or Chairman Mao or Saul Alinsky or them pinkos Ben Franklin and Alexander Hamilton or any other liberal degenerates.

LAKSHMI MITTAL, Britain’s richest man, stands to benefit from a £1 billion windfall from a European scheme to curb global warming. His company Arcelor Mittal, the steel business where he is chairman and chief executive, will make the gain on “carbon credits” given to it under the European emissions trading scheme (ETS).

The scheme grants companies permits to emit CO2 up to a specified “cap”. Beyond this they must buy extra permits. An investigation has revealed that ArcelorMittal has been given far more carbon permits than it needs. It has the largest allocation of any organisation in Europe

@Jeffswift: Lunacy. All the 'Very Serious People' predicting runaway inflation right around the corner unless we undertake austerity punishment for our sins have been consistently wrong over and over again for years on end. Yet they keep saying the same lines. Listen up: There will be no inflation in an under-producing economy until demand increases and moves us closer to full production.

We must lead by example in climate change. It's unreasonable to expect developing economies to reform when the advanced economies conjur alibis and endless excuses for not doing so. Do it, then you have some leverage. As to the reason we must 'fork over trillions' it's because we're risking enormous quality-of-life degradation for billions at the minimum and extinction at the maximum. It's not American's Earth to squander, it belongs to everyone and every living thing.

Global average land and sea surface temperatures have increased since 1850, thought to be caused by:

The
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
concluded that "most of the observed increase in global average
temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the
observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

There
is more uncertainty about the causes of the changes observed in the
early part of the 20th-century. Possible influences include solar,
volcanic and greenhouse gas factors, and natural variability that is
internal to the climate system.

@JonBoy And you see, I thought you were smart and being sarcastic. I didn't realize that you are actually posting this silly stuff "Many PhDs"? Like which ones? Don't join conversations you don't understand

@Phoenix44 I could buy a presently $3.50 ice cream for a dime from the Good Humor truck back in 1963.Our money is essentially a fantasy that will be found out soon I am afraid.I sure wish you are correct.

@kcopie Hmmmm, tell that to these people ...(CNSNews.com) – A small chain of islands in the Indian Ocean is
often cited as a threatened area by some environmentalists who claim
that global warming will lead to catastrophic events, including rising
sea levels that could put the Republic of Maldives underwater by 2100.